Comparing data-driven physiological denoising approaches for resting-state fMRI: Implications for the study of aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physiological nuisance contributions by cardiac and respiratory signals has a significant impact on resting-state fMRI data quality. As these physiological signals are often not recorded, data-driven denoising methods are commonly used to estimate and remove physiological noise from fMRI data. To investigate the efficacy of these denoising methods, one of the first steps is to accurately capture the cardiac and respiratory signals, which requires acquiring fMRI data with high temporal resolution. In this study, we used such high-temporal resolution fMRI data to evaluate the effectiveness of several data-driven denoising methods, including global-signal regression (GSR), white matter and cerebrospinal fluid regression (WM-CSF), anatomical (aCompCor) and temporal CompCor (tCompCor), ICA-AROMA. Our analysis focused on each method’s ability to remove cardiac and respiratory signal power, as well as its ability to preserve low-frequency signals and age-related functional connectivity (fcMRI) differences. Our findings revealed that ICA-AROMA and GSR consistently remove more heart-beat and respiratory frequencies, but also the most low-frequency signals. Our results confirm that the ICA-AROMA and GSR removed the most physiological noise at the expense of meaningful age-related fcMRI differences. On the other hand, aCompCor and tCompCor seem to provide a good balance between removing physiological signals and preserving fcMRI information. Lastly, methods differ in performance on young- and older-adult data sets. While this study cautions direct comparisons of fcMRI results based on different denoising methods in the study of aging, it also informs the choice of denoising method for broader fcMRI applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".